[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
I am not sure how liberals, with their supposed belief in liberty, are not the first ones calling for massive impeachments and terminations.[/quote]
I absolutely agree with this statement. There was a time where I classified myself as a liberal as I believed in equal rights for everyone, free trade, freedom of the press, etc. In fact most of the Founding Fathers were liberals using the classical definition.
But now liberal means something totally different.
james
[/quote]
I honestly think today’s liberals are more concerned with ideology than principal. Same with certain corners of the right too. There used to be liberals like Dennis Kucinich. I disagreed with them, but respected them because you knew where they stood. He would criticize Bush and Obama both for their foreign policy, regardless of their party affiliation. If this executive abuse of power was exercised by Bush, you would see near riots from the far left.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I honestly think today’s liberals are more concerned with ideology than principal. Same with certain corners of the right too.[/quote]
They are.
You just have to make sure to include the conservatives too.
And then realize that they’re all just acting out fundamental, basic, human nature and that this isn’t much different from what happened the moment the Constitution was freaking created.
The Alien and Sedition Act, if anyone actually bothers to remember. One of the most draconian attempt at power by the federal government, and it was signed in by John Adams, the first president to take office after Washington!
This whole fucking argument that we are toxic and the government doesn’t care about us anymore is complete bunk. Look at the first fucking decade of our post-Constitution Convention government and you’ll see insanity the likes of which you never see today. Obama wants a dictatorship? Oh my God. If any president or the dominant political party today had the balls to attempt anything like the Alien and Sedition Acts today… Actual riots will break out.
Except… You know what the best part is? I GUARANTEE you that the layperson from the party that created the modern hypothetical Alien and Sedition Acts will say we need it for X reasons.
I wonder how Britain can get away with naming two of its armoured vehicles the “Saladin” and the “Saracen” with nary a peep of protest from the Muslim community. Are they not outraged at the blatant cultural insensitivity?
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
First it was the Washington Redskins, now this!
So what about the “Tomahawk” missle??? Those racist bastards. Lol Where does it end lads?[/quote]
Missiles are also sexist. Due to their phallus-like shape they subconsciously enforce misogyny and prop up patriarchal systems of oppression against women and gender non-conformists.[/quote]
Not bad. Quite accurate. Expecting the NOW to jump into the fray. All weapons need to be gender-neutral.
[/quote]
We should make a vagina shaped missile - that’ll make em happy![/quote]
I can’t imagine it would be very aerodynamic …it would flap in the wind lol
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I wonder how Britain can get away with naming two of its armoured vehicles the “Saladin” and the “Saracen” with nary a peep of protest from the Muslim community. Are they not outraged at the blatant cultural insensitivity?
[/quote]
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Did they change the college name of “The Fighting Sioux”? If so, what is the diffence between that and Norte Dame’s mascot?[/quote]
The Irish generally have a higher tolerance for whisky than the Lakota.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Did they change the college name of “The Fighting Sioux”? If so, what is the diffence between that and Norte Dame’s mascot?[/quote]
The Irish generally have a higher tolerance for whisky than the Lakota.[/quote]
Lol (seriously).
But what term is offensive? The “fighting” or the “Sioux”?
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Did they change the college name of “The Fighting Sioux”? If so, what is the diffence between that and Norte Dame’s mascot?[/quote]
The Irish generally have a higher tolerance for whisky than the Lakota.[/quote]
Lol (seriously).
But what term is offensive? The “fighting” or the “Sioux”?[/quote]
Oh, the Sioux part, clearly.
I mean, the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, the USC Trojans, the Michigan State Spartans, the Idaho Vandals, the Boston Celtics… these are all athletic teams named after warlike peoples, but where is the outrage from Scotsmen and Irishmen and Greeks and Turks and Germans over American athletes co-opting the names of their ancestors?
This is what the liberal mind fails to grasp: when you name a helicopter after an Indian tribe, it’s because it was a bad-ass Indian tribe, and you want your bad-ass helicopter to be associated with the tribe’s bad-assery.
Ditto for a sports team. Sports teams want to be thought of as fierce and warlike, which the Irish and the Trojans and Spartans and Vandals, the real ones, actually were. And so were the Sioux, and the Blackhawks, and the Apaches, and all the rest.
The Indians were badass. The Comanche, for instance, were a tribe of mounted warriors that out-maneuvered, out-rode and out-fought the best-equipped U.S. Cavalry?a feat even more impressive when one considers the Comanche first encountered the horse only in the late 17th century.
And speaking of Apache, Geronimo was an Apache. That dude along with 38 of his warriors were so bad ass, the US Gov’T sent 1/5 (one fifth!) of its Army, along with help from the Mexican army, to try to defeat him.
Or The Seminoles in Florida were also very fierce fighters. I believe they were the only Native American nation who technically were never defeated, though they fought three wars with the U.S. This was the only war in which the U.S. sent in its marines and navy as well as its army to fight the Seminoles.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
fiercest Native American tribe[/quote]
Oh really? And what do you base your criteria on? Domination of land or response to European resistance? And are you talking about North American or the entire region?
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
fiercest Native American tribe[/quote]
Oh really? And what do you base your criteria on? Domination of land or response to European resistance? And are you talking about North American or the entire region?
[/quote]
My criteria is on who is the fiercest warriors. If its all Indians, ill take the Aztecs. But I chose the Blackfoot since they had a nasty habit of wearing their opponents body parts as jewelry when preparing for battle. Oh, and they also tortured their prisoners by stuffing burning coals up their ass.
…it would flap in the wind lol